Just Sold my 5D2 with grip for $1400. This is ballpark price for them. The balance of your $1700 can go towards something else. You get better image quality the classic. Also liveview. Video. And dust control which is useful as 5dc is dust magnet.
Image quality not much different to 5D3.
You'll enjoy the 5D2.
I have a 1D3 as that was op's question. 5D2 is much more satisfying landscape camera with wider lenses. Quality of raw file much nicer than 1d3 as well. But both going for similar price now used.
The natural upgrade would be to the 5D II if you are generally satisfied with everything else on the 5D. Especially if you want to print larger, I could see a real difference above 16x24. I shot a 5Dc for about 5 1/2 years and although I loved the images it produced, I just wasn't satisfied with its performance in other areas. For me the upgrade would have been to the 5D III -- however, I think that camera is over priced -- so I went a whole different route. The 5D II is a very good camera and for landscape shooting its really in its element.
Paul
I already suggested a 5D2, BUT much depends on how you shoot landscapes:
1) Do you use a tripod?
2) Do you use large apertures most of the time?
3) How big does your output need to be (prints and such)?
If you can afford it to stick to ISO100-400 and use f/8 and smaller a lot, even one of the new rebels and a 'cheap' lens will do. But your 5D will be fine too, if the output is big enough. I made some fine landscape prints from 5D files. Just saying
Just to chip in again...for the money you could get a quality MF film rangefinder.
My feeling is that serious landscape photographers are very choosy when they press that exposure button....and they don't do it that often. Which makes MF film an economical proposition in many respects...particularly for B+W enthusiasts as deving film is so easy.
That aside...I accept a decent scanner would be needed....but something like the V700 from Epson gives great MF scans and these easily give highly detailed A2 prints with amazing depth and tonality.
anthonygh wrote:
Just to chip in again...for the money you could get a quality MF film rangefinder.
My feeling is that serious landscape photographers are very choosy when they press that exposure button....and they don't do it that often. Which makes MF film an economical proposition in many respects...particularly for B+W enthusiasts as deving film is so easy.
That aside...I accept a decent scanner would be needed....but something like the V700 from Epson gives great MF scans and these easily give highly detailed A2 prints with amazing depth and tonality.
Most "serious landscape photographers" are not as reticent about making exposures as you seem to think, and not all landscape photography is done at a leisurely, thoughtful pace. Quite a few landscape photographers, including some whose names you might recognize, have come to prefer digital for a number of reasons, among them the fact that they can afford to make more exposures of their subjects and try out more ideas, or even shoot subjects that they would have mostly left alone with film since they couldn't afford to make scores or even hundreds of exposures.
If money is an issue, shooting film and scanning it is hardly a sensible option, especially if your goal is to produce scans that have quality equivalent to that of the available DSLRs. And scanning is not exactly a simple or quick process if you do it well. And the V700, as wonderful as it is, is not really state of the art in terms of the highest quality scans.
While I understand that retro draw that film has for some new shooters and the fine reasons that some long-time film shooters have for sticking with it, the odds the OP would think that a rangefinder film camera is an "upgrade" from a 5D are next to nil.
Is the 5Dc hindering you in any way with your landscape photography? If not, you can always invest that amount for some new lenses. Otherwise, I would highly recommend the 5DII. I upgraded to the 5DII from the 5Dc and I absolutely love it.
I'm in a slightly similar situation and think you should consider saving the money towards Canon's D800 competitor. The resolution increase from 5D to 5D2 isn't exactly an order of magnitude, especially when considered linearly. I'm looking forward to a good megapixel jump in a compact body, which seems like it would serve landscape photographers well as well. If you're pretty happy with what you have, don't rush in to blowing the cash right away, I would say.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Most "serious landscape photographers" are not as reticent about making exposures as you seem to think, and not all landscape photography is done at a leisurely, thoughtful pace. Quite a few landscape photographers, including some whose names you might recognize, have come to prefer digital for a number of reasons, among them the fact that they can afford to make more exposures of their subjects and try out more ideas, or even shoot subjects that they would have mostly left alone with film since they couldn't afford to make scores or even hundreds of exposures.
If money is an issue, shooting film and scanning it is hardly a sensible option, especially if your goal is to produce scans that have quality equivalent to that of the available DSLRs. And scanning is not exactly a simple or quick process if you do it well. And the V700, as wonderful as it is, is not really state of the art in terms of the highest quality scans.
While I understand that retro draw that film has for some new shooters and the fine reasons that some long-time film shooters have for sticking with it, the odds the OP would think that a rangefinder film camera is an "upgrade" from a 5D are next to nil.
Fully agree with Dan regarding film. I still shoot film but it's getting rarer these days, loading a roll of Velvia or PanF is now mostly a quarterly event; after 35+ years using rangefinders and SLRs my time is better spent experimenting and digital is without a doubt cheaper per shot than film, not to mention the instant feedback, unlike a week to wait for film.
If you wanted to try film, my EOS3 bodies are going for $150 gripped these days and it's a great body. I still like my film process, it slows me down a lot, keeps my eyes in shape and I like the look of certain films for printing/colors. Also, if you have a good bit of AF glass, the EF lenses can be used for film bodies as well.
I'd save my money, get any additional glass 1st, wait for the 6D reviews and one or two firmware updates before moving forward...who knows, the 5D3 might be within reach by mid 2013 and from an all around; do most everything mindset, it looks like a fine choice; as is the older 5D2
gdanmitchell wrote:
Most "serious landscape photographers" are not as reticent about making exposures as you seem to think, and not all landscape photography is done at a leisurely, thoughtful pace. Quite a few landscape photographers, including some whose names you might recognize, have come to prefer digital for a number of reasons, among them the fact that they can afford to make more exposures of their subjects and try out more ideas, or even shoot subjects that they would have mostly left alone with film since they couldn't afford to make scores or even hundreds of exposures.
If money is an issue, shooting film and scanning it is hardly a sensible option, especially if your goal is to produce scans that have quality equivalent to that of the available DSLRs. And scanning is not exactly a simple or quick process if you do it well. And the V700, as wonderful as it is, is not really state of the art in terms of the highest quality scans.
While I understand that retro draw that film has for some new shooters and the fine reasons that some long-time film shooters have for sticking with it, the odds the OP would think that a rangefinder film camera is an "upgrade" from a 5D are next to nil.
I shoot landspes with both a 5d2 and Fuji 6x9. Each has it's pro's and cons and for me the 5d2 is used forncolour while the 6x9 is used for B&W. There is nothing wrong in using film for landscapes and even though it might be a long shot for this OP, never the less, it is a very viable option...especially for B&W work. People diss using film implying photogs that do are relics...but in the end it is the print that matters and I have some beautiful landscape photos made from my 6x9 film shots.
4x5 is another way to go. For $750 you can get a great setup that includes full tilt and shift abilities. It takes a little getting used to this format, but once mastered the results can be stunning.
I guess...coming from an art background where I would think carefully about investing many hours of time on one painting (read image) the ability to make say a dozen careful compositions in a day is a luxury.....two dozen.....hard to cope.
As for using a V700......I would suggest anyone not getting exceptional prints from MF scans from that machine is doing something wrong. I had to spend hours fine tuning the height adjusters and scanning process.....but I have A3 prints from 35mm emulsions that easily compare with A3 prints from a 40D. I don't print any larger but have severely cropped MF scans.
As for overall costs (and I am talking from a B+W perspective here- I don't think I would go back to colour film for costs and convenience).....one can buy and dev a lot of film for the price / depreciation costs of a decent FF DSLR.
In contrast.....the MF film bodies and my V700 are all worth more now than I paid for them.
I guess...coming from an art background where I would think carefully about investing many hours of time on one painting (read image) the ability to make say a dozen careful compositions in a day is a luxury.....two dozen.....hard to cope.
As for using a V700......I would suggest anyone not getting exceptional prints from MF scans from that machine is doing something wrong. I had to spend hours fine tuning the height adjusters and scanning process.....but I have A3 prints from 35mm emulsions that easily compare with A3 prints from a 40D. I don't print any larger but have severely cropped MF scans.
As for overall costs (and I am talking from a B+W perspective here- I don't think I would go back to colour film for costs and convenience).....one can buy and dev a lot of film for the price / depreciation costs of a decent FF DSLR.
In contrast.....the MF film bodies and my V700 are all worth more now than I paid for them....Show more →
Yep the OP went from a 10d --> 20d --> t2i --> 5d and now is looking at spending another $1700. Yep...digital is surely cheaper
Have you heard anything about the new Sigma DP Merrills? The DP2M comes with a built in 30mm lens on a aps-c sized Foveon sensor in a point and shoot sized box that is seriously challenging the IQ of any other camera available. The DP1M offers the same camera with a 19mm lens that is a little weaker in the corners. Check it out!
I was about to suggest the same camera, a Sigma DP2 Merrill for strictly landscape photography. I saw images taken with that camera and I was impressed. Don't shoot at >ISO800, preferably at ISO100, use a tripod and be prepared to get impressed. The current street price is $899... and you can put the rest of the money towards another lens.
Prefer a bit of a root-and-branch approach, with a disciplined focus on landscape, since that's what you say you want to do. Suggest you sell the 5D classic and all your lenses, except the 17-40, which you keep. Put the proceeds from that sale together with your new money (should total about $3700) toward the following: Zeiss 50 MP f/2.0 ($1283 new); Canon 85 f/1.8 ($359 new); a used 5D II($1400 or less).
I'm guessing that will leave you with about $700 in your pocket. That won't quite cover what you need next, which is a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and a good ball head. You will have to throw in about $300 more to get those. Do not stint on your tripod. You work with it on every shot you set up, and you will fight with it on every shot if it is a bad one. Hard-to-use tripods make cold, tired photographers skip great shots.
You will come out with the focal range from 17-85 covered, and with high quality prime lens images at 85mm, and astonishing IQ at 50mm. The camera IQ will be much higher than before, and you will be able to take advantage of live view focusing because you will have a tripod. Shooting with perfect focus off a good tripod the 5D II delivers the resolution and image quality you need to make gallery-quality prints at least 30 inches wide.
